Comments on: The Literary-Generic Principlehttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/
Faith, mutatis mutandisThu, 19 Apr 2018 11:05:19 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.3By: Steve Douglashttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/#comment-94428
Sun, 22 Jul 2012 20:21:00 +0000http://undeception.com/?p=58#comment-94428ZP, it’s not an anchor. I must explain that I have developed in my thinking about Scripture a good bit since I wrote this. I am no longer convinced that the biblical authors are exempt from error in matters of faith and practice. I now believe that the Bible is fully and completely human, with all that entails.

It should be noted that there was no “Talmud around the same time”: it apparently didn’t begin in oral form until after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, and didn’t start to get written down until around AD 200. We don’t have any stories about rabbis who performed miracles until after this period. So the Jesus stories were a bit more unique for the time; doesn’t make them correct, but it does put the Gospels’ stories as worth a bit more more than a dime a dozen.

]]>By: ZPhttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/#comment-94427
Sun, 22 Jul 2012 09:43:00 +0000http://undeception.com/?p=58#comment-94427Steve, I have to (respectfully) ask again how 2 Tim. 3:15-17 can be such an anchor. I’m not actually trying to argue with you, but to understand. If the Bible is written by fallible mortal humans and God allows them to make all their mistakes, then why not assume that Paul writing to Timothy is just expressing his personal opinion about scripture, and isn’t serving as God’s mouthpiece?

Also, with regard to the accuracy of historical accounts at the time of Jesus: people might have had the notion of relating real (“factual”) events, but their notion of what could fall under real was very different from the mainstream 21st century model. The Talmud around the same time has quite a few accounts of rabbis being raised from the dead by other rabbis (through the power of God) for example. One wants to believe that they are true, but it’s hard for a simple 21st century lay person to know. Were miracles like this more common in their day and age? Were people just more gullible? Was it propaganda? Was it in fact a bid to demonstrate somebody’s greatness, since claims such as virgin birth and resurrections were fairly common in the myths of the surrounding cultures?

]]>By: Why creationists are creationists | Undeceptionhttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/#comment-8425
Sun, 09 Aug 2009 00:51:00 +0000http://undeception.com/?p=58#comment-8425[…] recognize both scriptures I just cited as non-scientific descriptions of reality because we allow literary-generic principles and cultural context to influence our […]
]]>By: Mike Beidlerhttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/#comment-5776
Thu, 28 May 2009 13:06:13 +0000http://undeception.com/?p=58#comment-5776Brian,
I have found that cold, hard facts are always the best way to express truth because they are truth by definition.

That’s a “modern, 21st-century mindset” I hear talking. Who are we to judge the literary methods of “truth-telling” of a distant culture from a distant past?

]]>By: Mike Beidlerhttp://undeception.com/the-literary-generic-principle/#comment-91498
Thu, 28 May 2009 13:06:00 +0000http://undeception.com/?p=58#comment-91498Brian,
I have found that cold, hard facts are always the best way to express truth because they are truth by definition.

That’s a “modern, 21st-century mindset” I hear talking. Who are we to judge the literary methods of “truth-telling” of a distant culture from a distant past?